>The Lord had a resurected body at that time. Which is quite a bit
>different from a glued on moustache. John 20:15 says that Mary >supposed that He was a gardener. Luke 24:16 says that their eyes >were "restrained" so that the disciples did not know Him. Neither is >a "disguise".
true, he did not disguise himslef per se, but could God not also
"restrain" other peoples eyes from seeing an Overlord's Gaurd as he
really is? Just because Jesus was God doesn't mean that God couldn't do
the same thing for one of us adopted guys.
\
Greg
>>>OK, so the wording is a bit vague in the LRHB. Perhaps it needs >>more clarification--the OG passage *is* the second shortest >>passage in that section. Maybe use a WordRune to change and >>give some more restrictions on>>transformation.>>The idea of limitations could be a good way to "fix" the Special Role.>>Let's be legalistic for a moment. Doesn't the Old Testament say >that a man is not to wear a woman's dress, and a woman is not to >wear a man's? The OverLord's Guard can do just this when >changing form since it can be male or female in appearence. >Unless the OG is naked at the time of shape-changing. But then >again, the OG is still a male when appearing to be a female, and >vice versa. Something to think about.>>Joe R>>-->To unsubscribe, send ANY message to ><dragonraid-unsubscribe@...>>>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]